Support NeoGAF

[mjq jazz bar]

Michael Moore believes the war the US is fighting is illegal.

Thus, those fighting US forces are, in their own minds, fighting for the defense of their own country.

He's not saying anything radical, --------------------------.

 

[videogamer]

You're applying a very broad rule for one person and a fairly narrow rule for the other. That's a double standard.

As far as I'm concerned, the contact details that Moore publicizes are just as open to abuse as Moore's personal contact details. Sure, it's in bad taste that it puts Moore's direct family in the firing line, but I think it's in equally bad taste to put another person's work colleagues and innocent bystanders who might work on the next floor at risk.

I'm not even religious, yet I find myself nodding along with a phrase that goes along the lines of "Do unto others".

Moore has more than happily publicized details that are considered to be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, and he cleans his hands of any consequence that comes of his actions by saying that he's equipping Americans with information that's freely available. Likewise, this Christian group is equipping its audience with information that's in the public domain.

They deserve each other.

I would also think that the religious group would be held to a higher standard. For an organization that attempts to tell people how to live, act, and even think, it's not exactly the best thing to do. I find it annoying that a group that preaches about morals doesn't mind pushing the line itself. On the other hand, Moore isn't as big on telling people how to live, act, etc. I don't find him to be a role model, and I assume that he doesn't try to make himself as one.

I think that this might have to do with a broader complaint about certain religious people. Some religious groups tend to hype up their religion and their way of life. Some of them say that their religion is the way, the Truth. They act as though they are holier-than-thou. Yes, it's a double standard, but I believe it's an appropriate one.

 

[The Promised One]

Some of them say that their religion is the way, the Truth. They act as though they are holier-than-thou. Yes, it's a double standard, but I believe it's an appropriate one.

I understand how some can come off that way, but, let me explain. The vast majority of Christians (I mean those that really are Christian, as in believing Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that no one come to the Father, except through Him), don't think they're better than anyone. They just happen to have a stricter sense of morality that some who are say, secular, but they honestly don't think they deserve to go to heaven more than anyone else. They believe that they're saved by Grace through Faith, and Grace through Faith alone.

The problem is that, whenever you don't do certain things, secularists tend to look at you with contempt. In fact, the same contempt that they feel someone who is Christian must look upon them with. For example: I was hanging with some close friends, all of which happened to be secular, and they wanted to watch Eyes Wide Shut. Well, I honestly didn't want to watch the film (for obvious reasons that you may or may not agree with), and after they couldn't decide on something else, I offered to leave and do something else, so they could watch it. Now, I didn't say "Ok you heathens, I'm leaving because I'm better than you, and I don't want to be corrupted by your evil", I just basically said that if they really wanted to watch it, I didn't want to ruin their good time, so I had no problem whatsoever with leaving (besides, I only lived 5 minutes away).

Well, suddenly, everyone started accusing me of being judgmental. Why? Simply because I don't want to watch something you do? That's just plain stupid. Besides, I see secularist "judge" people all the time, particularly people whom they consider "religious".

Now, of course there are some Christians who look down on others, but honestly, they're in the minority. ItÕs just that the vast majority of the Christians that the media shows happen to conveniently be of that minority. I used to think pretty much all Christians were judgmental as well, that is, until I became one, and really got to know a lot of them.

 

[The Promised One]

Atheism and communism aren't related.

That's pretty much all you said that worth responding to, so here goes....


You're either grossly ignorant of not only history, but also of the various polictal parties, and the ideolies that helped to form them, or your just plain in denial.

Whichever one it is, I really don't care.

 

[The Promised One]

I would just like to say this...

These are not Christians. These are not your good Samaritans.

This goes against of the mantra "WWJD". Ugh.

They are in fact, Christians, they just happened to do something stupid. Basically, they made a mistake. Granted, it was dumb, but Christians (at least 99% of them that is) don't claim to be perfect.

So, who's being judgmental now?

 

[videogamer]

I understand how some can come off that way, but, let me explain. The vast majority of Christians (I mean those that really are Christian, as in believing Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that no one come to the Father, except through Him), don't think they're better than anyone. They just happen to have a stricter sense of morality that some who are say, secular, but they honestly don't think they deserve to go to heaven more than anyone else. They believe that they're saved by Grace through Faith, and Grace through Faith alone.

The problem is that, whenever you don't do certain things, secularists tend to look at you with contempt. In fact, the same contempt that they feel someone who is Christian must look upon them with. For example: I was hanging with some close friends, all of which happened to be secular, and they wanted to watch Eyes Wide Shut. Well, I honestly didn't want to watch the film (for obvious reasons that you may or may not agree with), and after they couldn't decide on something else, I offered to leave and do something else, so they could watch it. Now, I didn't say "Ok you heathens, I'm leaving because I'm better than you, and I don't want to be corrupted by your evil", I just basically said that if they really wanted to watch it, I didn't want to ruin their good time, so I had no problem whatsoever with leaving (besides, I only lived 5 minutes away).

Well, suddenly, everyone started accusing me of being judgmental. Why? Simply because I don't want to watch something you do? That's just plain stupid. Besides, I see secularist "judge" people all the time, particularly people whom they consider "religious".

Now, of course there are some Christians who look down on others, but honestly, they're in the minority. ItÕs just that the vast majority of the Christians that the media shows happen to conveniently be of that minority. I used to think pretty much all Christians were judgmental as well, that is, until I became one, and really got to know a lot of them.

Well, what I meant by "holier-than-thou" is that they believe that their way is superior. That their religion and way of life is superior to others, and non-believers will burn. This is from my own personal experience, not from television (which I watch very little of).

However, I think that the difference here is that the religous people are well, religious. That would mean that they are supposed to adhere to their religion and actually not be judgemental. I think it's also a problem with hypocrisy. Secular people generally aren't held to that standard because they aren't always talking about the "right" "moral" kind of behaviour.

Well, what I meant by "holier-than-thou" is that they believe that their way is superior. That their religion and way of life is superior to others. Of course, that may imply that the way of life and religion of others are inferior. I find it quite annoying when people ask silly questions like "why do you worship idols". That obviously demonstates a lack of knowledge and contempt for other ways of living. BTW, I talked about some religious people, not any particular group (besides Focus on the Family of course).

 

[videogamer]

They are in fact, Christians, they just happened to do something stupid. Basically, they made a mistake. Granted, it was dumb, but Christians (at least 99% of them that is) don't claim to be perfect.

So, who's being judgmental now?

Many of them do claim that their way of life and personal philosophy are perfect. [sarcasm] Of course, others would do well to abandon their heathen or God-less ways of life and accept [insert some religious figure]. [/sarcasm]

 

[The Promised One]

Many of them do claim that their way of life and personal philosophy are perfect. [sarcasm] Of course, others would do well to abandon their heathen or God-less ways of life and accept [insert some religious figure]. [/sarcasm]

Well, of course Christians are going to claim they Jesus is he truth (their "personal philosophy"), otherwise, why believe it in the first place? Not to mention that that's what everyone does, from secular to saint. You think I'm just as wrong as I think you are. How is you thinking I'm wrong, any different that me thinking the same? Frankly, it's not. It's just that your opinion just happens to be more socially popular and accepted.

Now, if by "way of life" you mean simply a Christian lifestyle, then again, you're in the same boat. You too probably think your way of life is pretty much perfect as well. If though, you mean that they think that they personally are indeed perfect, then I'd have to disagree, because I can assure you that they don't. Reason being is that the entire reason for ChristÕs sacrifice being necessary, is because humans are extremely far from perfect, and no one is more aware of that than the vast majority of Christians.

Please understand though, I'm speaking from a humanistic, secularist level.

 

[Jim Bowie]

It seems that the word "Christianity is a dirty word to anyone the littlest to the left. I'm getting quite angry at the entire community here on GA. For pretending to be open-minded, it's unbelievably shallow to lump an entire religion onto a handful of zealots. It's absolutely false and quite idiotic to assume that all Christians are Bush-loving, liberal-bashing abortion doctor/political filmmaker killers. I must ask, in all fairness, that you DO NOT JUDGE an entire religion by a few people. Dobson, the man responsible, is not every Christian. Not every Christian is hugely right wing. For an example, take me. I'm very liberally minded. I am a registered Democrat, I have no problem with abortion, and I believe that God is accepting towards homosexuals. Yet, I believe in God and am a very fervent Christian.

Those who act in a holier-than-thou way are not following the teachings of Christ. Jesus Christ taught nothing but love, kindness, and acceptance. That is the way that people should evangelize; through love, not hate. However, nobody around here wants to have anything to do with those people, the vast majority. No, fuck that-- let's focus on a few select right wing fundamentalists and claim that this is all that Christians are, a miserable pile of hate. Well, you know something? Those who do that are just as hate-filled, rightist, biased, and narrow-minded as the same "Christian bastard fundamentalists" that they slam.

Again, I ask: Don't judge a religion by a few people. It just makes you look like an ass.

 

[videogamer]

Well, of course Christians are going to claim they Jesus is he truth (their "personal philosophy"), otherwise, why believe it in the first place? Not to mention that that's what everyone does, from secular to saint. You think I'm just as wrong as I think you are. How is you thinking I'm wrong, any different that me thinking the same? Frankly, it's not. It's just that your opinion just happens to be more socially popular and accepted.

When did I say "You think I'm just as wrong as I think you are. "?

Now, if by "way of life" you mean simply a Christian lifestyle, then again, you're in the same boat. You too probably think your way of life is pretty much perfect as well. If though, you mean that they think that they personally are indeed perfect, then I'd have to disagree, because I can assure you that they don't. Reason being is that the entire reason for ChristÕs sacrifice being necessary, is because humans are extremely far from perfect, and no one is more aware of that than the vast majority of Christians.

Please understand though, I'm speaking from a humanistic, secularist level.

I never said that my way of life is perfect. In fact, you don't know how I live my life and how I try to improve myself.

I'm probably not being clear about the issue of being perfect. IMHO, the annoyance isn't at the religious people thinking that they themselves are perfect, but how the religious people think that their world view is perfect and other worldviews false, if not dangerous. Of course, some tolerate it. However, I've met plenty of others who won't bother talking about it and go straight to the religion bashing. When I was a child, I was told multiple times that I was going to Hell because of my religion. That, of all my childhood experiences, was one of my most influential experiences as a child.

 

[Hitokage]

That's pretty much all you said that worth responding to, so here goes....


You're either grossly ignorant of not only history, but also of the various polictal parties, and the ideolies that helped to form them, or your just plain in denial.

Whichever one it is, I really don't care.

Since the relationship implied is that communism is born out of atheism, I will take issue with it. Soviet communism may replace God with the State, but if that wasn't the case it would highly resemble biblical christianity, as told in The Acts. It uses the State as something to be revered in order to motivate work in society. So while soviet communism may deny the existence of a supreme being, it's works just like any dogmatic religion.

... but really, since Atheism is only the lack of belief in a God, there isn't much to go on. Religions have their accompaning theology and doctrines which make them far more likely canidates for extrapolation, whereas Atheism has none whatsoever.

 

[Minotauro]

Eyes Wide Shut. Well, I honestly didn't want to watch the film (for obvious reasons that you may or may not agree with),

Out of curiousity, what are these reasons? Is it the nudity?

I guess I just don't understand closing yourself off to certain ideas. This lady my mom works with called my mom a "heathen" for reading The Davinci Code. It seems to me that any system of belief that requires you to disregard any information that may be contrary is somewhat questionable in itself.

Also, I apologize if my post comes off as denigrating toward your particular religion. I tried to phrase it with as much tact as I could. It's something I'm genuinely curious about.

 

[fart]

did he give the goldberg address out?

 

[The Promised One]

Since the relationship implied is that communism is born out of atheism, I will take issue with it. Soviet communism may replace God with the State,

That's the point. It's a form of government based on Atheism.

but if that wasn't the case it would highly resemble biblical christianity, as told in The Acts.

Um.....yeah...ok. *insert big fat rolleyes here* You're joking, right?

It uses the State as something to be revered in order to motivate work in society.

And it uses Atheism as a reason for using "state" as a god.

So while soviet communism may deny the existence of a supreme being, it's works just like any dogmatic religion.

That's my point. People, particularly Secularist and Atheists, love using the old "religion causes death" argument, as reason for their hatred (and hatred is exactly what it is), of God, and anything about God in an absolute sense. But, groups of people dogmatically bonded to Atheism, have produced the same atrocities.

... but really, since Atheism is only the lack of belief in a God, there isn't much to go on. Religions have their accompaning theology and doctrines which make them far more likely canidates for extrapolation, whereas Atheism has none whatsoever.

Son, I used to be an atheist. And it certainly has its share of dogma as well as doctrines (even if they are unofficial, they still exist). It also has a bible of sorts (The Origin of Species). Atheism is a faith, just as much as Christianity is, though of course it's much less structured, and thus leads to certain lifestyle choices. Were I to stick 15 Atheists in a room together, and ask them all the same questions on certain moral and political issues having nothing to do with mentioning God, I can guarantee you that they would all answer the same on almost every issue. Atheism has no official church, in the same sense that most religions do, but it certain does fall in line with being a "candidate for extrapolation". I should know, I used to be one.


Honestly, I see what you're trying to say, but imo, it doesn't hold water. You have to look at the moral reasons why millions (particularly Christians) have been murdered under Communism, and the reason is because of it's grounding in Atheism, which allows it to say there is no such thing a "moral" wrong.

 

[Minotauro]

Atheism, which allows it to say there is no such thing a "moral" wrong.

Are you saying that the existence of a supreme being that has the ability to punish you for your wrongs is the only thing keeping people "moral"? And, that atheists are free to do whatever the wish because they don't have to answer to anything?

 

[The Promised One]

Out of curiousity, what are these reasons? Is it the nudity?

Partially, but it's also the story as well. What you feed your mind with does in fact have an effect on the person you are, even if it's only on a subconscious level. It's kind of difficult to explain in a forum, since even though you might not make fun of me, others will, and I'm not in the mood for it.

I guess I just don't understand closing yourself off to certain ideas.

There's a difference between close-mindedness, and simply not wanting to taint yourself with garbage. Most things that I read and watch things that are basically secular (in that they promote a secular worldview), and I'm ok, but there's a limit that I'll allow.

This lady my mom works with called my mom a "heathen" for reading The Davinci Code.

Sorry about that. But just for the record (in case you care) the Da Vinci Code is not factual in the least. Even the vast majority of main-stream secular historians agree that it's claims are baloney. The problem is that Dan Brown has seriously tried to pass off his lies as historical fact, and it's understandably pissed a lot of people (mostly Christians) off, not just because of what it says about them, but because of how itÕs seriously duping the ignorant. That woman, is probably just a bit sensitive about the book, since it's author basically slaps anyone who believes in the bible in the face. That woman was wrong to jump on your mother like that, and it would been wiser to just talk to your mother about it, letting her know of it's fallacies. But, no one said Christians are perfect. They're people, just like anyone.

It seems to me that any system of belief that requires you to disregard any information that may be contrary is somewhat questionable in itself.

That depends. For those who are historically misinformed, or ignorant, then the book is a bad idea to read, since it'll just make you more misinformed. For those who are educated though, it's probably no problem, unless you wouldn't want to support the author with a purchase (which I don't).

One need not be so open-minded, that one's brain falls out.

Also, I apologize if my post comes off as denigrating toward your particular religion. I tried to phrase it with as much tact as I could. It's something I'm genuinely curious about.

No problem.

 

[The Promised One]

Are you saying that the existence of a supreme being that has the ability to punish you for your wrongs is the only thing keeping people "moral"? And, that atheists are free to do whatever the wish because they don't have to answer to anything?

Sort of, but not like that. This may seem weird, or difficult to understand, but while God can, and does have the power to, punish us for our sins, the reasons He should be obeyed is because He is right, and because of who He is (personality wise).

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil", since there would be no "Absolute" standard for what right and wrong, good and evil, are. Everything is naught but opinion. Even in so much as murder; I could go into your house, kill your entire family, and there is nothing you could say about it, in so much as what I did was morally evil.

Of course you could say it, and I could be caught, sent to jail, and even executed under the laws of this nation. But, were atheism to be true, no one could say with any absoluteness that what I did was indeed evil, since evil would just be a matter of opinion. Even if every single person in the world stated that they felt what I did was evil, that wouldn't have anymore weight than my opinion, since they both come from humans, and one humans "opinion" is no higher than another's in an absolute sense, no matter where the majority "opinion" lay.

For something to be truly right or wrong, good or evil, there has to be a standard set from something higher than ourselves, otherwise, it's all just opinions and personal feelings, which ultimately are moot in an absolute sense.

C.S. Lewis explains it much better than I can,

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' - 'That's my seat, I was there first' - 'Leave him alone, he isn?t doing you any harm' - 'Why should you shove in first?' - 'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' - 'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well asuneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man?s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Anywho, hope that helped. I'm going to bed now, night all.

 

[dark10x]

You're either grossly ignorant of not only history, but also of the various polictal parties, and the ideolies that helped to form them, or your just plain in denial.

!?!?!??!?

So what are you saying? That athiests today are somehow related to communism? There may be a history between the two, but suggesting that they are still related is crazy. Atheism is NOT some sort of group or organization...it is about as individual as you could possibly get.

 

[The Promised One]

!?!?!??!?

So what are you saying? That athiests today are somehow related to communism?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Moving on...

 

[Gattsu25]

Holly Shat...that was an exceptionally retarded move on their part o:

Maybe he'll be able to see that the acts of some do not represent a group as a whole :b

going by personal experience, athiests are nice and caring people

kinda weird to see such a split, though, between the understanding people that I know and the hateful people that post here

 

[dark10x]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Moving on...

Shew, just clearing that up.

 

[firex]

Can we publish the IP addresses of all forum pundits, write an article insulting them, and imply that we can let them "know how we feel" and take them offline for a few days?

 

[Gattsu25]

hmm...not even going to edit that one but there should have been a 'some of' between and and the in that post ; ;

 

[Mumbles]

That's my point. People, particularly Secularist and Atheists, love using the old "religion causes death" argument, as reason for their hatred (and hatred is exactly what it is), of God, and anything about God in an absolute sense. But, groups of people dogmatically bonded to Atheism, have produced the same atrocities.

Actually, I don't care about your god, or anyone else's. Compared to the things I don't like about the average conservative christian, the fact that they believe in a god is a very minor point (although the kind of god they worship isn't).

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil", since there would be no "Absolute" standard for what right and wrong, good and evil, are. Everything is naught but opinion. Even in so much as murder; I could go into your house, kill your entire family, and if there is nothing you could say about it, in so much as what I did was morally evil.

1) I see absolutely no reason why we couldn't judge people to be evil, even if morality were only personal opinion. After all, I always make judgments based on opinion on every other subject.

2) Morality and ethics need not be based on either Divine Command or emotivism.

3) Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the "I'll torture/banish/destroy/whatever you unless you worship me for no reason, within an insignificant amount of time" versions of the christian god is a good standard for morality. And from my personal experience, he clearly isn't. The more unitarian versions are quite nice, though, and I would actually like for one of those to exist.

4) Stop quoting Mere Christianity. I've read it, and I found it to be laughably unconvincing. I'm sure there are far better apologetic writings out there, but all I ever hear about is Lewis and that "Case for christ/god/faith" guy.

 

[dark10x]

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil", since there would be no "Absolute" standard for what right and wrong, good and evil, are. Everything is naught but opinion. Even in so much as murder; I could go into your house, kill your entire family, and if there is nothing you could say about it, in so much as what I did was morally evil.

I'm curious, where did you get that idea? From a website of some sort?

No wonder atheism is so looked down upon by your kind...

 

[videogamer]

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil", since there would be no "Absolute" standard for what right and wrong, good and evil, are. Everything is naught but opinion. Even in so much as murder; I could go into your house, kill your entire family, and if there is nothing you could say about it, in so much as what I did was morally evil.

Of course you could say it, and I could be caught, sent to jail, and even executed under the laws of this nation. But, were atheism to be true, no one could say with any absoluteness that what I did was indeed evil, since evil would just be an opinion. Even if every single person in the world stated that they felt what I did was evil, that wouldn't have anymore weight than my opinion, since they both come from humans, and one humans "opinion" is no higher than anotherês in an absolute sense, no matter where the majority "opinion" lay.

Atheists can have philosophical reasons for acting in socially acceptable ways. Think of the numerous variations on the "golden rule". It's not like atheists suddenly lose ethics and knowledge of socially appropriate behaviour once they come to the conclusion of the non-presence of "God" or gods or high entities.

Also, another problem with that argument is that not all religions consider the same things to be "morally evil". You talk about absolutes, but when you compare religions, it's hard to have absolutes in every single thing. Of course, most religions agree on killing humans, but what about animal slaughter? Really, with all the diverse religions in the world, I find it difficult to find an absolute standard.

Also, someone mentioned "hating" "God". How could an atheist "hate God" if they don't even believe in one? Also, using the term "God", imho, restricts the conversation to only a couple of religions, leaving out others.

 

[DrForester]

no one replied the first time i asked, so i'll ask again.




didn't michael moore give out charleton heston's home address in Bowling for Columbine?

 

[xabre]

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil"

The problem with Gravity is that if you if you jump off a building you'll splatter on the pavement. It seems Gravity doesn't give a fuck about you splattering on the pavement and nor does the Universe about the petty squabbles of human beings, a couple of lions or some barnyard animals.

But hey, whatever dogma drilled into your poor little brain gets you through life. So go right on ahead, criticise those that share a more rational world view, condemn and kill whomever you want opposing that viewpoint and continue to hold back social progression to the detriment of the rest of us that don't subscribe to your fairy tales.

 

[Razoric]

The problem with Gravity is that if you if you jump off a building you'll splatter on the pavement. It seems Gravity doesn't give a fuck about you splattering on the pavement and nor does the Universe about the petty squabbles of human beings, a couple of lions or some barnyard animals.

But hey, whatever dogma drilled into your poor little brain gets you through life. So go right on ahead, criticise those that share a more rational world view, condemn and kill whomever you want opposing that viewpoint and continue to hold back social progression to the detriment of the rest of us that don't subscribe to your fairy tales.

piizzzzzowww

nice

 

[Zilch]

Wow. The Promised One made long, eloquent posts and gets attacked and insulted for it.

Open-minded indeed.

 

[shoplifter]

Just for fun:

JAMES C DOBSON
1453 SMOOCHERS CIR COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80904

 

[dark10x]

Wow. The Promised One made long, eloquent posts and gets attacked and insulted for it.

Open-minded indeed.

What does that have to do with being "open minded"?

 

[Zilch]

Because at the very least people should be able to accept that he believes what he believes and not insult him for it?

 

[dark10x]

Because at the very least people should be able to accept that he believes what he believes and not insult him for it?

I'm not insulting him, but it seems to me that he is also failing to accept what other people think...

 

[Zilch]

I know YOU'RE not insulting him, but some are.

And I know you guys don't like this idea, but the concept behind being a Christian is that you know the Truth and it's the ONLY truth. You shouldn't accept any other worldviews.

 

[3rdman]

Wow. The Promised One made long, eloquent posts and gets attacked and insulted for it.

Open-minded indeed.

Having once been a man of religous convictions, I can tell you that "open-minded" is far from what the Promised One is. That crack about Atheism not having a moral base is all the proof you need of it and for the record (since we're being all sensitive to other people's feelings) that crack is an INSULT too.

BTW, This is the first and last post I'll make on this subject. I learned long ago that you won't win any arguements screaming at a wall.

 

[Deg]

I know YOU'RE not insulting him, but some are.

And I know you guys don't like this idea, but the concept behind being a Christian is that you know the Truth and it's the ONLY truth. You shouldn't accept any other worldviews.

Sames goes for alot of other 'beliefs'

 

[dark10x]

I know YOU'RE not insulting him, but some are.

And I know you guys don't like this idea, but the concept behind being a Christian is that you know the Truth and it's the ONLY truth. You shouldn't accept any other worldviews.

...but what if another NON-Christian feels the same way about THEIR views?

 

[Gattsu25]

...but what if another NON-Christian feels the same way about THEIR views?

then they believe THIER worldview and we believe OURS

this constant need to belittle others and try to undermine their beliefs is rediculous

"He doesn't think like me, I'll show him!"

:rolleyes

 

[Hamfam]

The problem with Atheism, morally speaking, is that if no God exists, then there really is no such thing as a moral "wrong" or "evil"

The problem with religious folk, is they believe everything they dis-agree with is morally wrong or evil. The whole reason we have a democratic goverment, is so that we can decide as a majority what is to be enforced as right and wrong. And not to rely on what some book, tell us is wrong.

 

[Gattsu25]

and yet we live in nations that have laws that could easily fill books. :b

 

[Banjo Tango]

didn't michael moore give out charleton heston's home address in Bowling for Columbine?

No, I think Moore just went there. Then again, it was a long time since I've seen the movie.

What I want to know is... why was Moore pointing a web cam at the bedroom of that guy's mother? Who is that guy?

 

[Hitokage]

That's the point. It's a form of government based on Atheism.

No, it's not. Soviet communism is an a economic ideology born out of Marxism, which was a response to the grossly unfair conditions of the Industrial Revolution. Of course, Marx didn't realize that socialist reforms would correct the major problems in industrial capitalism and his revolution wasn't really necessary. The adoption of a state-based devotion is one out of utility, not nature.

Um.....yeah...ok. *insert big fat rolleyes here* You're joking, right?

All property and income owned and redistributed by the Apostles? I'm not, and I suggest you become more familiar with the Bible. Regardless, my point there was that if you could get a communist-like system out of an undeniably religious and theistic nature, then it's hard to claim that it's a system based on atheism.

And it uses Atheism as a reason for using "state" as a god.

No, its an attempt to keep communism viable. If people are working for the good of the State, then their efforts in a commune are easier to manage mentally. Whereas if they were working to build up the kingdom of God yet their country isn't preparing for the Millenium, then they'd have conflicting goals. Come to think of it, soviet communism may indeed be theistic in a way, just without the supernatural being.

Son, I used to be an atheist. And it certainly has its share of dogma as well as doctrines (even if they are unofficial, they still exist). It also has a bible of sorts (The Origin of Species). Atheism is a faith, just as much as Christianity is, though of course it's much less structured, and thus leads to certain lifestyle choices. Were I to stick 15 Atheists in a room together, and ask them all the same questions on certain moral and political issues having nothing to do with mentioning God, I can guarantee you that they would all answer the same on almost every issue. Atheism has no official church, in the same sense that most religions do, but it certain does fall in line with being a "candidate for extrapolation". I should know, I used to be one.

Really? And just why did you come to be atheist? I'm certain it's for reasons different than mine. Were you genuinely skeptical as to the nature of a supreme being, or were you just angry at having been dealt misfortune in your life? What you fail to grasp is that Atheism is merely a statement of belief, not a belief system. While a Christian gets everything in a package, an Atheist has to build their own. So tell me, did you subscribe to the philosophy of Buddhism? Humanism? Or did you just assume you had to be communist, since, after all, that's what atheism is all about, right?

Also, please tell me where in Darwin's work it establishes there is no god of any kind. I must say it's awfully conceited and self-centered to insist that diety had direct influence in your life or he doesn't exist at all. I would also like to hear those doctrines you're talking about...

While you may have at one point said "God doesn't exist", I highly doubt you really understand why others may do so, and it's obvious you don't have a clue where others may choose to go from there.


Anyway, you argument makes the claim that since Communism rejects supernatural diety, ignoring that it does so out of utility, it's based on Atheism. You're confusing cause and effect, and therefore your claim is logically unsound.

 

[FightyF]

Are we going to wait until people die before considering these "fundamentalists" (I prefer the term "radicals"...fundamental Christian teachings are far more forgiving) will be considered a threat to national security?

 

[The Promised One]

I'm probably only going to answer one person, since pretty much everyone else seems to have said the same type of things.

1) I see absolutely no reason why we couldn't judge people to be evil, even if morality were only personal opinion. After all, I always make judgments based on opinion on every other subject.

You're missing the point. I already acknowledged that one certainly has the freedom to make moral judgments, just like I have the freedom murder someone (though, there would be consequences were I to get caught). What you seem to not understand is that the freedom to simply do a particular thing, and the ability to do a thing with authority are two completely different things.

For morality to carry any actual weight in an absolute sense, where something can be said to be truly "evil" in the same sense that we know that certain natural laws work (Like gravity as one mentioned. That were I to jump off a cliff, it's simply not debatable that I would fall to the Earth), and not have it be anything more than opinion, even if that opinion is a majority one, our morality must come from someone higher than ourselves.

Of course we can form laws, societies, and a general rule of do's and don'ts, without the need for God, and I never said we couldn't (in fact, I said that we could). But, the difference lies between opinion and authority. Within a universe where Atheism is true, no one can say that anything is truly morally evil, with authority, any more than I could say the sky is plaid. I'm not debating one's ability to say and try to use morality in an opinionated sense, but that's just the thing. Opinions are simply, well, opinions. And no mans is higher than anotherÕs.

Plus, one can certainly say, or claim that their moral opinion does indeed carry weight, and is absolute, but that would simply be a fantasy of their own minds, and certainly couldn't be called "truth" in any sense of the term, any more that I could be called a squirrel, and have it be a truth.

2) Morality and ethics need not be based on either Divine Command or emotivism.

For it to be truth, and have authority and weight, yes it does. Simply opinionated-morality does not though.

3) Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the "I'll torture/banish/destroy/whatever you unless you worship me for no reason, within an insignificant amount of time" versions of the christian god is a good standard for morality. And from my personal experience, he clearly isn't. The more unitarian versions are quite nice, though, and I would actually like for one of those to exist.

You have God all wrong. Anyone who ends up in hell, is there because they'd rather be there, and in God's presence. On Earth, for now, we can hide from Him, and pretty much ignore Him if we want. In Heaven though, that is not a possibility. Those who hate the idea of His authority over their lives (and if you hate the rule by which He says to live by in the Bible, then you do in fact hate that authority, kind of like how criminals hate cops), wouldnÕt enjoy Heaven in the least. Try reading -The Great Divorce-. And to quote Lewis again (paraphrasing).....

At the end of all things, there will only be two types of people. Those who say to God "Lord, thy will be done", and those to whom God says "thy will be done".

4) Stop quoting Mere Christianity. I've read it, and I found it to be laughably unconvincing. I'm sure there are far better apologetic writings out there, but all I ever hear about is Lewis and that "Case for christ/god/faith" guy.

Last I checked, you arenÕt the lord-of-the-internet, so I'll quote whom I please, thank you very much.

 

[The Promised One]

Having once been a man of religous convictions, I can tell you that "open-minded" is far from what the Promised One is. That crack about Atheism not having a moral base is all the proof you need of it and for the record (since we're being all sensitive to other people's feelings) that crack is an INSULT too.

I'm not in the least trying to be insulting. Though, to be honest, the fact that you (and several others) obviously take offense is certainly no surprise. On forums, the Atheists I meet generally do. But the majority of Atheists I've met in person though, and have discussed this issue with, have agreed with me.

 

[The Promised One]

bunch-o-stuff

I disagree. Done and done. There's really no point in carrying it on further.

 

[firex]

I'm probably only going to answer one person, since pretty much everyone else seems to have said the same type of things.

What a copout. You had your points refuted by Hitokage. Either find proof against them, or concede.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

What's the use of good and evil when a person can s[e]t his or her own precedent for what is right and wrong? If you agree an atheist can avoid murdering a person because he or she himself/herself knows that doing so breaks some sort of moral or legal code, then you certainly negate the usefulness of having definitions for good and evil.

I, as an agnostic, don't murder and steal because I realize the effect murder will have on others, and also understand the importance of working for what I own.

If I can determine this on my own, why should I worry about God being the judge of my actions? In effect, I've written my own moral code, and am the judge of my own actions.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

No, I think Moore just went there. Then again, it was a long time since I've seen the movie.

What I want to know is... why was Moore pointing a web cam at the bedroom of that guy's mother? Who is that guy?

It's probably something that happened in the first season of The Awful Truth. Searching a bit, this woman was Lucianne Goldberg, who evidently convinced Linda Tripp to record her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky regarding Bill Clinton. So I guess he figured that if she wanted to make others' business public, so could he.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/time/cloud.html

During the Clinton years, Goldberg has been involved in publishing efforts that, if fruitful, would mortify the President. Goldberg has reportedly represented Dolly Kyle Browning, yet another woman alleging a Clinton affair (one debunked by critics). She also tried to get a book deal for the Arkansas state troopers who said they procured women for then Governor Clinton. Goldberg says she met Tripp in 1994 after she found an author to write a book about the death of Vincent Foster, which conspiracy theorists have deemed homicide, not suicide. Goldberg might be one of them. She has played part of the Lewinsky tapes for a friend, who describes them as "sexually explicit." The friend says Goldberg told him that the release of the tapes is "payback for Vince Foster."

Goldberg may have been trying to get the Lewinsky tale into the tabloids as early as last fall. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, who helped break the current scandal, visited her apartment frequently. She isn't squeamish about blasting Clinton openly. "What I'm glad about is he's getting caught," she told the Washington Post. "At something. If it took this to get him, fine." If all the President's men come after her the way they've attacked Tripp, she added, "I'd be on the lawn of the White House with a deer rifle." She's prepared to weather criticism of her motives. "I can take the hits," she told CNN. "I'm a rich old lady."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/12/21/goldberg.html

In the now familiar story line--Linda tapes Monica, Linda plays tapes to Lucianne, Lucianne urges Linda to go to Kenneth Starr--Lucianne emerges as a type known to everyone, for better or worse. ONE WOMAN'S PLEASURE IS THE PRESIDENT'S PAIN: LUCIANNE GOLDBERG REVELS IN FRENZY SHE HELPED START, read a Washington Post headline early on in the scandal. "I'm not going to say that I did this because I'm some great Christian," she told the New Yorker during the scandal's first week. "I did it because it's f__ing fascinating! I love dish! I live for dish!" Goldberg was the mixer, the thrill seeker who makes mischief merely for the fun of seeing the fur fly.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990519.asp

Moore: "Well I got a new show on TV called the Awful Truth. It's on Bravo and as part of our show I just thought it would be interesting to turn the tables on her. I was on the show with her, on this Drudge show, and she said that she didn't think it was wrong to violate somebody's privacy if they were a threat to the country and I said, 'How would you like it if I filmed you in your living room?' And she said, 'Well if I was a threat to the country you should.' And you know I keep seeing her on TV still. I thought this whole impeachment thing was over and I just, well she is a threat to the country and I want this thing to go away. So we put up this Webcam, which is completely legal, on her apartment and anybody can log in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And we are also asking, you know, my, our fellow citizens of the country who want to keep an eye on her in case, you know, she's up to something else. Take us down another road where we get distracted for a year and a half. Just keep an eye on her and let's try and stop her next time."